Whether a federal prisoner can obtain a certificate of appealability and hold an appeal in abeyance after fully serving his sentence for a supervised release revocation judgment

No question identified. : D. Vt. 17-cv-172 00-cr-119 Sessions, J. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6" day of July, two thousand twenty-three. Present: | Raymond J..Lohier, Jr., Michael H. Park, William J. Nardini, Circuit Judges. Stephen Aguiar, v. 23-342 United States of America, Appellant, pro se, moves for a certificate of appealability and to hold the appeal in abeyance or alternatively, for remand. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. Appellant has fully served the sentence for the supervised release revocation judgment, therefore the appeal of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 denial as to that judgment is DISMISSED as moot. United States v. Probber, 170 F.3d 345, 347-48 (2d Cir. 1999). As to his 2001 conviction, Appellant has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling,” as to the untimeliness of the Appellant’s motion filed pursuant to § 2255. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Ata stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25" day of August, two thousand twenty-three. Stephen Aguiar, Petitioner Appellant, . ORDER United States of America, Docket No: 23-342 Respondent Appellee. Appellant, Stephen Aguiar, filed a motion for panel reconsideration, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration en banc. The panel that determined the appeal has consideréd the request for reconsideration, and the active members of the Court have considered the request for reconsideration en banc. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk